UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1765
FRAY LUBIAN JIMENEZ-GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: April 26, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Efrain Alsina, Orlando, Florida, for Petitioner. Benjamin C.
Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Leslie
McKay, Assistant Director, Christopher Buchanan, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fray Lubian Jimenez-Garcia, a native and citizen of
Colombia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2012). For the reasons set forth
below, we dismiss the petition for review.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2012), entitled “Denials
of discretionary relief,” “no court shall have jurisdiction to
review any judgment regarding the granting of relief under
section . . . 1229b,” which is the section governing
cancellation of removal. Here, the Board agreed with the
immigration judge’s secondary finding that the facts in Jimenez-
Garcia’s case did not warrant a favorable exercise of
discretion. See In re C–V–T-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 7 (B.I.A. 1998)
(discussing evaluative process for determining whether an
applicant warrants a favorable exercise of discretion).
Jimenez-Garcia, in his brief filed in this court, asserts a
particularized and layered challenge to this conclusion.
Because a denial of discovery relief is, as its name
suggests, discretionary in nature, we lack jurisdiction to
review it absent the assertion of a colorable constitutional
claim or question of law. See Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400,
405 (4th Cir. 2005) (“It is quite clear that the gatekeeper
2
provision [of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)] bars our jurisdiction to
review a decision of the [Board] to actually deny a petition for
cancellation of removal.”). An appellate court, in assessing
its jurisdiction, must:
[D]etermine, regardless of the rhetoric employed in
the petition, whether it merely quarrels over the
correctness of the factual findings or justification
for the discretionary choices, in which case the court
would lack jurisdiction, or whether it instead raises
a “constitutional claim” or “question of law,” in
which case the court could exercise jurisdiction to
review those particular issues.
Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d
Cir. 2006).
We have reviewed Jimenez-Garcia’s claims of error and agree
with the Attorney General that Jimenez-Garcia fails to raise a
colorable constitutional or legal challenge to an entirely
discretionary determination. See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353,
358 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]bsent a colorable constitutional claim
or question of law, our review of the issue is not authorized by
§ 1252(a)(2)(D).” (emphasis added)). Despite being couched in
terms of the propriety of the immigration judge’s analytical
process and failure to abide by Board precedent, Jimenez-Garcia
asks this court to reassess his evidence and to conclude that he
does warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. This we will
not do. See Sorcia v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117, 124-26 (4th Cir.
2011) (rejecting petitioner’s contention that his arguments—that
3
the immigration judge misapplied the law and ruled contrary to
established precedent in weighing the discretionary factors
relevant to cancellation of removal—qualified as issues of law);
Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 243, 251 (4th Cir. 2008)
(explaining that this court “decline[s] to stretch reason to
locate questions of law in what [it] ha[s] properly analyzed as
a factual determination”).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of
jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DISMISSED
4